Originally Posted by Arni90
Does 7970s even support more than 12 megapixels?
Will dual CPUs actually help?
And do you actually need more than 3GB VRAM for this?
Sure it sounds nice with 4x 7970 6GB in a dual-socket motherboard, but I kind of wonder if this is more about blowing money than actual gaming.
Yes, most likely. See, a lot of vRAM gets used storing the image. As the size of the image increases, so does the amount of vRAM. It's also used for other things, which don't scale linearly, but if each card has to hold the same amount of information in vRAM (as they are not additive), then each card must keep all of the ridiculous amount of pixels in memory.
To give you an idea of just how big a resolution this is, I made a generic preview picture by drawing a lot of lines in paint.NET and then using post-effects to turn it into a noisy tunnel, and saving it as .bmp (uncompressed)
The file size was about 80mb. For a single rendition of his monitor setup. A "normal" 1080p version of the same picture (just resized) would be about 6mb.
1GB is just about enough to run Skyrim with mods @ 1080p (I get texture pop ins a lot more than I did without mods, so I think more would be ideal). Assuming that most of that is texture memory etc, you're still going to use up a *lot* of memory by increasing the size of the image.
As outlined here:
At 6064x1200 with 4xAA, a lot of games fail with 1GB that can work well with 2GB. The resolution that we are aiming for with this build is 8024x3200 - about three times that. If 2GB was required for games on that resolution, then we can assume that 4-6GB will be needed at the higher resolution.
Well, if we look at scaling ratios, we can see that there is an appreciable difference between 1GB and lower vRAM values in a lot of modern games today.
As we can see in this review:
The 768mb card was all but unplayable (apparently) with AA applied in many games. Thus we can see required vRAM is somewhere in the region of 800mb-1GB. As multi-monitor resolutions increase, required vRAM increases, and 6GB would be where I would be at to be safe. I would actually guess it will be somewhere between 4GB-5GB, but since you cannot get cards with that amount of memory, 6GB would be the correct choice.
Also note my earlier post - with a *lot* of guesswork, I think that an unmodified Skyrim will get approximately 30fps in Ultra. Since a lot of that can be scaled back with a simple tweak to AA (with this pixel density, a slightly lower amount should be acceptable?), the drop from 8x to 4x should net enough fps for modding... I think. It's a close call, but I think that the Nvidia equivalents will not come with enough vRAM to run this game at these resolutions if past experience is anything to go by.
Also, don't forget this:
It has a "patch"/mod/whatever to move the menu into the middle. I think it'll still render on the middle two screens in this setup, but it's better than having things spread across the whole screen?
Could be possible to create a version to limit it to a certain number of pixels, and get it at the bottom (I don't know), but that'd require more work on the programme itself, I think.
Edit: Oh, and I should add this - Skyrim is a dual-core bound game. You want the highest single-threaded performance possible. Adding a second CPU will add to the cost without giving any benefit whatsoever to Skyrim performance. It will help other games (perhaps), but not Skyrim, and not the majority of older games. At least, not yet. If they're going to go about and recompile the .exe to make things like Skyboost and TESVAL unnecessary, they *might* add in some support for further multi-threadedness. I mean, if they currently have two-threads available, adding more shouldn't be that difficult, depending upon how the programme is written. I don't think that that's very likely, though.Edited by Korlus - 1/17/12 at 1:56am